Catholic Partisanship and the Presidential Vote in 2012: Testing Alternative Theories
-
Lyman A. Kellstedt
Lyman A. Kellstedt is Professor of Political Science (emeritus) at Wheaton College (IL). His work has been in American politics and political behavior, with a focus on religion and politics. His most recent book is theOxford Handbook of Religion and American Politics , edited with Corwin E. Smidt and James L. Guth.
and
James L. Guth
James L. Guth is William R. Kenan, Jr., Professor of Political Science at Furman University. He has written widely on the role of religion in American and European Union politics. His current projects are a study of religion in Congress and an investigation of religious influences on the foreign policy orientations of the American public.
Abstract
Catholics have long been an important force in American electoral politics. Once a vital and loyal component of the New Deal Democratic coalition, Catholics in recent decades have shifted their political loyalties away from the Democratic Party to more of a partisan equilibrium. Indeed, by 2012, the White Catholic vote had become predominantly Republican, even in a year in which a Democrat was re-elected to the White House, and on balance party identification among these voters showed a slight Republican edge. Only the growing contingent of Latino Catholics kept the national vote of the entire religious community closely balanced. Despite widespread agreement among scholars that the partisan behavior of Catholics has changed, there is much less consensus on the nature of that change, its permanence, and its causes. We review the historic patterns of Catholic partisanship and voting behavior, discuss three major perspectives on electoral change among Catholics, and test these perspectives with data drawn from the 2012 National Survey of Religion and Politics, with a rich battery of religious measures. We find that socioeconomic factors, religious perspectives, and issue preferences among Catholics all influence partisanship and vote choice, reducing any true “distinctiveness” of the “Catholic vote.”
About the authors
Lyman A. Kellstedt is Professor of Political Science (emeritus) at Wheaton College (IL). His work has been in American politics and political behavior, with a focus on religion and politics. His most recent book is the Oxford Handbook of Religion and American Politics, edited with Corwin E. Smidt and James L. Guth.
James L. Guth is William R. Kenan, Jr., Professor of Political Science at Furman University. He has written widely on the role of religion in American and European Union politics. His current projects are a study of religion in Congress and an investigation of religious influences on the foreign policy orientations of the American public.
- 1
Polls conducted prior to the 1980s included very few Latino respondents, resulting in a virtually all-White Catholic survey population.
- 2
These demographic data are drawn from time series of the American National Election Studies and the General Social Survey.
- 3
Some observers, however, doubt either that this phenomenon is significant, finding only minor partisan differences (D’Antonio, Dillon, and Gautier 2013) or that it is permanent, discovering that in some years observant Catholics are still more Democratic, at least when other factors are controlled (Gray and Bendyna 2008; Streb and Frederick 2008).
- 4
This measure has considerable affinities both to the 1960 ANES items ascertaining Catholics’ propensity to favor church involvement in politics (used by Converse 1966) and to Lewis-Beck et al.’s concept of political “legitimacy” among religious groups (2008, pp. 314–317). The impact of our measure is similar to those, but more pronounced at the bivariate level.
- 5
We also have a measure of the importance of religion to the respondent, used by Lewis-Beck et al. (2008) as a primary measure of group identification. As we have other stronger measures that are also correlated with importance of religion, we have not included it in the analysis. White Catholics who say religion is important favor the GOP by 41–36%, while those who do not prefer the Democrats by a larger 43–32% margin. This variable drops out, however, in the multivariate analyses of religious factors and in the full model (cf. Mockabee 2007).
- 6
Ironically, the index for personal morality would be much more powerful with the omission of the abortion item, as respondents whose priests speak about abortion are disproportionately Democratic. An index including just homosexuality and religious liberty pronouncements easily achieves statistical significance.
- 7
Inclusion of self-identified ideology raises the variance explained to over 46% and eliminates the direct effects of all variables other than income, age, and the economic and moral issue factors, the coefficients of which are greatly reduced.
- 8
Although the number of voters in the Latino Catholic subsample is too small to draw firm conclusions, at the bivariate level Romney voters are concentrated among traditionalists, regular church-goers and those taking strong positions favoring civil religion. Indeed, a logistic regression incorporating these variables and gender predicts the presidential vote perfectly.
Appendix on Variable Construction
Religious Traditionalism. “My denomination or church should: 1) strive to preserve its traditional beliefs and practices; 2) be willing to adjust traditions in light of new ideas; or 3) strive to adopt modern beliefs and practices.” Traditionalists prefer the first option.
Political Religion. A factor score from the following items: whether religious groups should stand up for their beliefs in politics, whether religious groups of all kinds should stay out of politics, whether it was important that the president have strong religious beliefs, and the importance of religion to the respondent’s political thinking. Theta reliability=0.71.
Orthodox Belief. A factor score from the following five items: belief in God, in life after death, in Biblical authority, that the Devil really exists, and disbelief in evolution as the best explanation for the origins of life. Alpha reliability =0.75.
“Moral Church” Context. Additive index of whether the clergy or other leaders “at your place of worship” have spoken out about (1) same sex marriage, (2) abortion, or (3) issues of religious liberty.
“Social Justice” Context. Additive index of whether the clergy or other leaders “at your place of worship” have spoken out about (1) poverty or hunger issues, (2) women’s rights, or the (3) economy.
Economic Conservatism. First principal component of a principal components analysis of six items tapping opposition to (1) a national health care program, (2) more environmental regulation, (3) higher taxes to fight hunger and poverty, (4) higher taxes to provide more governmental services, (5) greater assistance to minorities, and (6) government responsibility for jobs. Theta reliability=0.71.
Moral Traditionalism. First principal component of a principal components analysis of four items tapping opposition to (1) gay rights, (2) abortion rights, and (3) gay marriage, as well as support for the proposition that (4) religious rights are being endangered in the US. Theta reliability=0.70.
Militant Internationalism. First principal component of a principal components analysis of five items tapping support for (1) maintaining superior military power worldwide, (2) military pre-emption of foreign threats, (3) putting high priority in fighting international terrorism, (4) support for Israel over the Palestinians, and (5) putting high priority in stopping illegal immigration. Theta reliability=0.62.
Cooperative Internationalism. First principal component of a principal components analysis of three items tapping support for (1) strengthening the United Nations, (2) putting a high priority on fighting world hunger and poverty, and (3) putting a high priority on fighting global environmental threats. Theta reliability=0.65.
The authors wish to thank John C. Green and Corwin E. Smidt for their contributions to this research project.
References
Berelson, Bernard R., Paul F. Lazarsfeld, and William N. McPhee. 1954. Voting. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Converse, Phillip E. 1966. “Religion and Politics: The 1960 Election.” In Elections and the Political Order, edited by Angus Campbell, Philip E. Converse, Warren E. Miller, and Donald E. Stokes. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.Search in Google Scholar
D’Antonio, William, Michele Dillon, and Mary L. Gautier. 2013. American Catholics in Transition. Lanham MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Search in Google Scholar
Dionne, E. J., Jr. 2004. “There Is No Catholic Vote – And It’s Important.” In American Catholics and Civic Engagement, edited by Margaret O’Brien Steinfels, 251–260. Lanham MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Search in Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P., Samuel J. Abrams, and Jeremy C. Pope. 2006. Culture War? New York: Pearson Longman.Search in Google Scholar
Gray, Mark M., and Mary E. Bendyna. 2008. “Between Church, Party, and Conscience.” In Catholics and Politics: The Dynamic Tension Between Faith and Power, edited by Kristen E. Heyer, Mark J. Rozell, and Michael A. Genovese, 75–92. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Greeley, Andrew. 1990. The Catholic Myth: The Behavior and Beliefs of American Catholics. New York: Scribner.Search in Google Scholar
Guth, James L. 2013. “Religion and American Public Attitudes on War and Peace.” Asian Journal of Peacebuilding 1(2): 227–251.10.18588/201311.000014Search in Google Scholar
Judis, John B., and Ruy Teixeira. 2002. The Emerging Democratic Majority. New York: Scribner.Search in Google Scholar
Kellstedt, Lyman A., and James L. Guth. 2013. “Survey Research: Religion and Electoral Behavior in the United States, 1936–2008.” In Political Science Research in Practice, edited by Akan Malici, and Elizabeth S. Smith, 93–110. New York and London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Leege, David C., and Paul Mueller. 2004 . “How Catholic is the Catholic Vote?” In American Catholics and Civic Engagement, edited by Margaret O’Brien Steinfels, 213–250. Lanham MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Search in Google Scholar
Lewis-Beck, Michael S., William G. Jacoby, Helmut Norpoth, and Herbert F. Weisberg. 2008. The American Voter Revisited. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.10.3998/mpub.92266Search in Google Scholar
Miller, Warren, and Merrill Shanks. 1996. The New American Voter. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Mockabee, Steven T. 2007. “The Political Behavior of American Catholics: Continuity and Change.” In From Pews to Polling Places: Faith and Politics in the American Religious Mosaic, edited by J. Matthew Wilson, 81–104. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Prendergast, William B. 1999. The Catholic Voter in American Politics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Putnam, Robert D., and David E. Campbell. 2010. American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us. New York: Simon and Schuster.Search in Google Scholar
Smith, Gregory A. 2008. “One Church, Many Messages.” In Catholics and Politics: The Dynamic Tension Between Faith and Power, edited by Kristen E. Heyer, Mark J. Rozell, and Michael A. Genovese, 43–59. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Smidt, Corwin E., Lyman A. Kellstedt, and James L. Guth. 2009. The Oxford Handbook of Religion and American Politics. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195326529.003.0001Search in Google Scholar
Streb, Matthew J., and Brian Frederick. 2008. “The Myth of a Distinct Catholic Vote.” In Catholics and Politics: The Dynamic Tension Between Faith and Power, edited by Kristen E. Heyer, Mark J. Rozell, and Michael A. Genovese, 93–112. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Wald, Kenneth D. 1992. “Religious Elites and Public Opinion: The Impact of the Bishops’ Peace Pastoral.” Review of Politics 54: 112–143.10.1017/S0034670500017204Search in Google Scholar
©2013 by Walter de Gruyter Berlin Boston
Articles in the same Issue
- Masthead
- Masthead
- Editorial
- Introduction
- The Catholics and the Others: The Denominational Backdrop to Modern American Politics
- House Divided? Evangelical Catholics, Mainstream Catholics, and Attitudes toward Immigration and Life Policies
- Catholic Politics in the United States: Challenges in the Past, Present, and Future
- The American Catholic Church as a Political Institution
- Catholic Partisanship and the Presidential Vote in 2012: Testing Alternative Theories
- The Optional Preference? American Catholic Economic Advocacy and the Culture Wars
- The Politics of Denying Communion to Catholic Elected Officials
- John F. Kennedy and the Irish Catholic Political Tradition
- Catholic Social Teaching and American Politics: How Can a Church Contribute to Civic Dialogue in a Liberal Democracy?
- The Roman Catholic Church in “Protestant” America Today
- Book Reviews
- Wilson
- Fighting for the Speakership: The House and the Rise of Party Government
- The Substance of Representation: Congress, American Political Development, and Lawmaking
Articles in the same Issue
- Masthead
- Masthead
- Editorial
- Introduction
- The Catholics and the Others: The Denominational Backdrop to Modern American Politics
- House Divided? Evangelical Catholics, Mainstream Catholics, and Attitudes toward Immigration and Life Policies
- Catholic Politics in the United States: Challenges in the Past, Present, and Future
- The American Catholic Church as a Political Institution
- Catholic Partisanship and the Presidential Vote in 2012: Testing Alternative Theories
- The Optional Preference? American Catholic Economic Advocacy and the Culture Wars
- The Politics of Denying Communion to Catholic Elected Officials
- John F. Kennedy and the Irish Catholic Political Tradition
- Catholic Social Teaching and American Politics: How Can a Church Contribute to Civic Dialogue in a Liberal Democracy?
- The Roman Catholic Church in “Protestant” America Today
- Book Reviews
- Wilson
- Fighting for the Speakership: The House and the Rise of Party Government
- The Substance of Representation: Congress, American Political Development, and Lawmaking
